Print

Print


We do not have a criteria for CCA or ECA stenosis, so we cannot call the
percentage range of the stenosis, but we still make sure to point it out -
doubling in velocities from proximal segment, significant turbulence, visual
narrowing on color and/or gray, etc. and then add something like
"suggest/indicate hemodynamically significant stenosis."

I've unfortunately seen a number of patients with a CCA stenosis that were
called ICA stenosis (because of a jet from the CCA increasing the velocities
in the ICA) at other facilities.  We also make sure to mention that while
elevated velocities in the ICA indicate an x-y% stenosis, they may be due in
some part to elevated CCA velocities and then mention whether or not we see
some sort of indication that there may also be a separate stenosis within
the ICA.

Not all patients fit perfectly into the criteria boxes, so we do the best we
can to note what we do see - for patient care, of course! :) - while still
keeping an eye on our QA and ICAVL standards.  When you find funny stuff
that doesn't fit nicely into your established criteria and you describe its
appearance, rather than quantifying it with criteria you don't use, that
particular study shouldn't count for or against your QA, but still gives
physicians the information they need to treat.  The problem arises when we
quantify something we don't have criteria for - yes, that narrowed CCA with
a velocity of 700 cm/s and seriously disturbed flow distally is probably a
>50% stenosis.  Call it that and your physicians can treat and then your QA
is dinged.  But we can still perfectly describe the stenosis without using
the percentage and it's a win-win.

To unsubscribe or search other topics on UVM Flownet link to:
http://list.uvm.edu/archives/uvmflownet.html